Store hot and cold random access benchmark results

[lwwmanning]

Summary

Store both cached-accessor and per-take reopen timings from the random access benchmark. The benchmark already runs both modes, but v3 reporting discards reopen results. This prevents the benchmark site from comparing the two access paths.

Changes

Add open_mode to random-access v3 records and Postgres ingestion. Cached records preserve historical measurement IDs. Reopen records use distinct IDs. Focused producer, snapshot, and measurement-ID tests cover the field.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will regress 1 benchmark

⚠️ Unknown Walltime execution environment detected

Using the Walltime instrument on standard Hosted Runners will lead to inconsistent data.

For the most accurate results, we recommend using CodSpeed Macro Runners: bare-metal machines fine-tuned for performance measurement consistency.

⚠️ Different runtime environments detected

Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

⚡ 2 improved benchmarks
❌ 1 regressed benchmark
✅ 2136 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 106 skipped benchmarks¹
🗄️ 4 archived benchmarks run²

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	Simulation	cold_misaligned[(16, 64)]	345.6 µs	392.8 µs	-12.02%
⚡	WallTime	arrow_checked_add_u32_avx2[16384]	21.3 µs	17.7 µs	+20.38%
⚡	WallTime	mul_u32_nonnull_avx512	6.3 µs	5.6 µs	+12.03%

Tip

Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing wm/random-access-hot-cold (614e43f) with develop (f880575)}

Footnotes

1. 106 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

2. 4 benchmarks were run, but are now archived. If they were deleted in another branch, consider rebasing to remove them from the report. Instead if they were added back, click here to restore them. ↩

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 53c97b4dfa

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[connortsui20]

this seems fine, unclear how exactly this links to vortex-data/benchmarks-website#26 but I guess we will see